₦airaland Forum

Missy89:
There was no pitch battle in Vietnam just over 100 skirmishes and engagements. Name at least 20 that was lost by the US to support your lie

mazeltov:
you are a threat to civilization, more so you need to extend the coverage of your knowledge by doing researches. Please read my last post on that America and Viet war and help loose yourself from the hook of ignorance - Yes many people hold on to this fallacy that America lost the ''war'' in Viet; the war that the analysts are referring to is the [home support] which divided the Americans at home and not the main war in the frontline in Vietnam. The war lack supports of many Americans citizens - Please I may be too small to you in terms of age but please but don't be too proud to learn something from others. Take a look at Appleyard and co, you can learn one or two things from them and stop picking on people anyhow. Thanks and God bless

mach7:
My friend, check out what is called GLONASS. It is a platform that is equal to if not superior than GPS. Also, make a research on Russia, its size and signals/satellite infrastructure. By virtue of Russia's size, it is able to install satellite monitoring stations in Uzbekistan to cover the southern part of Asia & the indian ocean, on Kamchatka/Vladivostok to cover the pacific and in Murmansk/Belarus to Cover the Artic/Atlantic and Europe. Having several military bases all over the world is old fashioned and expensive, just a couple of airstrikes or cruise missile strikes and they are a pile of rubble. Pls research bro and don't gobble all that your western 'prof' tells you.

Appleyard:
Dear sir, i think its too early to jump to conclusions. I support Egypt denouncing the IS Claim on the ground that they do not possess the capability to hit th plane at such high altitude, but the possibility that the plane may have been downed by an external force, is very high, given the distance covered by the wreckage on the ground. Now that IS is out of the question (except the job was done from the inside,) the question now hangs, who did it? This is where, i dare say, your suspicion is well founded. The only culpable culprits therefore are Russia's sworn enemies particularly as it relate to Syria, and the commander in-chief is the United state of Anarchy in bed with Satan-Arabia. This might just be the much anticipated false flag cum reprisal attack against Russia, but then we may just have to wait for the conclusion of ungoin investigation. However, one thing is certain: if this was an attack, Moscow will SURELY strike back, and woe betide Riyadd if her hands are stained, not after offering cheap gas to Poland to undermine Russia. If you have anyone in the MidEast, tell him to leave now, that place is waiting to explode.

Shymm3x:
Nice post.

A lot of them don't know that over half of the US' military budget goes to the unnecessary bases that can easily be destroyed all over the world. And once you take that away compare the product cost of US hardware vis-a-vis Russian hardware - both countries spend almost the same amount on military budget.

Also, for all those bases - Russia has more than enough capabilities to destroy all of them, including the scrap metals a la aircraft carriers within 24 hours, without leaving Russia. Hence they invest a lot in ICBMs and medium range missiles. And in a war between the two - whoever wins continental Europe and Euroasia, should have the upper hand. A lot of these folks are just ignorant and there's no point wasting time on them.

I see you know a lot about military. Have you seen the Russian TOS-1 flame thrower? Darn!! That's one bad arse hardware. If Nigeria can lay hands on four of that - Boko Haram should be dead in a month.

Rotimi47:
let state that Ak74 is better than American M4/M16 riffles that jam in the thick of battle; the only advantage the M16 have is range - M16 range is 650 mtrs while Russian very reliable Ak74 range is 600mtrs. You spoke about attack helicopters but you tend not to know about Russian Kamov Ka-50 which is superior to any attack helicopter the united States have in its inventory, forget all these western propagandas.

Let talk about naval assets; American aircraft carriers cost billions but it takes just one Russian made anti ship missile called Brahamos to sink each one of them! I hope you can remember what just took place in Syria? The United States navy can only fire cruise missiles from very large warships and the best of their cruise missile range is just 250km while the Russians showed the world by firing their own cruise missiles from ships that are almost the size of a frigate and the cruise missiles range is 1,500km.

The united States & the west have brainwashed lots of people with their propagandas but in reality its a different ball game; let take about tanks, The United States main battle tank is M1 - Abraham tank which is inferior to Russian T90 tank not to talk about Russia's new thank that will start rolling in; its called ( Armanda ).

The Russians have a tank like flame thrower that its rocket projectile is equivalent to a nuclear bomb and what makes it more deadly is that it is very accurate.

Further more, a Mi24 is a multipurpose helicopter that takes up the role of an attack helicopter and a lifter( personnel carrier ), it can also lift tanks etc.
Let me say that the United States know that there is an imbalance in military capabilities between them and Russia and they are trying to reduce them, that's why America keep trying to put anti missile defenses in between them and Russia because they know that only Russia can take them out but they try to hide the fact by saying that they are trying to counter Iran.

let me state that I don't see any need for Russia a country that can hit all American bases by the torch of a button to start opening bases all over the world like the united States.

Finally,the United States President Obama made a statement in the middle of the Ukrainian crisis; he said on CNN that no country in the world want to see actual combat between the United States and Russia.

I rest my case.

Appleyard:
Stop all this skirmishes and engagement crap excuses. Let common sense play out reality here! Was there war in Vietnam? Yes! Did the US got involved? Big time, yes! Now, unto you and Mazeltov: what was the US objectives in entering the Vietnam war? How else do you determine success or measure achievements in relation to aims and objectives?




Questions; was the US able to achieve any of the above aims and objectives in Vietnam? Was it able to prevent Saigon's day of reckoning with Hanoi? so what do we call this: success or loss? Achievement or failure? Because the following facts beg for answers:

1. American soldiers served on active duty in the Vietnam War between 1964 and 1975 with 58,220 killed and 75,000 disabled. Over half the American soldiers killed were under 21 years.

2. 5 men in Vietnam who were killed were only 16 year of
age.

3. The oldest man killed in Vietnam was 62 years old. As of January 2004, even till date, over 1875-2500 Americans are still unaccounted for in Vietnam.

4. Total tonnage of US bombs dropped in Vietnam far exceeded the ones dropped in Italy, Germany and in Japan, in world war 2.

5. The war cost over 140 billion Dollars (even as at that time)


6. With no victory in sight, by 1 April 1973, U.S. forces were out of Vietnam (except for a few embassy guards and attaches) and 587 POWs had returned home (about
2,500 other Americans remained missing in action).

7. Because of the war, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in November 1973. It limited presidential power to deploy U.S. forces in hostile action without congressional approval. Nixon characterized the Paris Peace Agreements of 1973 as "peace with honor," but primarily they allowed the U.S. military to leave Vietnam without resolving the issue of the country's political future - the main reason why they went there at the first place.

8. Without U.S. air and ground support, South Vietnam's military defenses steadily deteriorated. In the spring of 1975, an NVA thrust into the Central Highlands turned into an ARVN rout.

9. On 30 April, as NVA and Vietcong soldiers entered the city, the last remaining Americans abandoned the U.S. embassy in Saigon in a dramatic rooftop evacuation by helicopters.

10. The war ended in victory to North Vietnam taking over and ruling the whole nation, even as it is to this day. And not a single jot of the aforementioned US objectives was realized regarding Vietnam.


Now back to the question: was the vietnam mission a failure or success? In the light of the above naked truth, can it be justified as " mission accomplished" or "mission failed", @Missy89 and co?

Even common sense and Most scholars conclude that the Vietnam War was a tragic event whose costs far exceeded any benefits for the United States of Awarnation, except the concepts of aims & objectives have lost it's true meaning in relation to achievement and success.

Even the NYT did not disagree:

https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/record-war.html

And many more knew it to be so.

www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/40-years-later-will-end-games-iraq-and-afghanistan-follow-vietnam-playbook

McTobe:
well u have the right to your own opinion but saying that Russia can't compete with USAF is a fallacy and u know it. if we are to go by military hardwares Russians are better, since we the two sides have not been on a face on collision in a major war we can't judge for sure the morale of their fighting forces but as far as hardware is concern US will keep wondering.

Appleyard:
Stop all this skirmishes and engagement crap excuses. Let common sense play out reality here! Was there war in Vietnam? Yes! Did the US got involved? Big time, yes! Now, unto you and Mazeltov: what was the US objectives in entering the Vietnam war? How else do you determine success or measure achievements in relation to aims and objectives?

U.S. objectives and concept of operations [are] to
prevent communist domination of South Vietnam; to
create in that country a viable and increasingly
democratic society, and to initiate, on an accelerated
basis, a series of mutually supporting actions of a
military, political, economic, psychological, and covert character designed to achieve this objective.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War


Questions; was the US able to achieve any of the above aims and objectives in Vietnam? Was it able to prevent Saigon's day of reckoning with Hanoi? so what do we call this: success or loss? Achievement or failure? Because the following facts beg for answers:

1. American soldiers served on active duty in the Vietnam War between 1964 and 1975 with 58,220 killed and 75,000 disabled. Over half the American soldiers killed were under 21 years.

2. 5 men in Vietnam who were killed were only 16 year of
age.

3. The oldest man killed in Vietnam was 62 years old. As of January 2004, even till date, over 1875-2500 Americans are still unaccounted for in Vietnam.

4. Total tonnage of US bombs dropped in Vietnam far exceeded the ones dropped in Italy, Germany and in Japan, in world war 2.

5. The war cost over 140 billion Dollars (even as at that time)


6. With no victory in sight, by 1 April 1973, U.S. forces were out of Vietnam (except for a few embassy guards and attaches) and 587 POWs had returned home (about
2,500 other Americans remained missing in action).

7. Because of the war, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in November 1973. It limited presidential power to deploy U.S. forces in hostile action without congressional approval. Nixon characterized the Paris Peace Agreements of 1973 as "peace with honor," but primarily they allowed the U.S. military to leave Vietnam without resolving the issue of the country's political future - the main reason why they went there at the first place.

8. Without U.S. air and ground support, South Vietnam's military defenses steadily deteriorated. In the spring of 1975, an NVA thrust into the Central Highlands turned into an ARVN rout.

9. On 30 April, as NVA and Vietcong soldiers entered the city, the last remaining Americans abandoned the U.S. embassy in Saigon in a dramatic rooftop evacuation by helicopters.

10. The war ended in victory to North Vietnam taking over and ruling the whole nation, even as it is to this day. And not a single jot of the aforementioned US objectives was realized regarding Vietnam.


Now back to the question: was the vietnam mission a failure or success? In the light of the above naked truth, can it be justified as " mission accomplished" or "mission failed", @Missy89 and co?

Even common sense and Most scholars conclude that the Vietnam War was a tragic event whose costs far exceeded any benefits for the United States of Awarnation, except the concepts of aims & objectives have lost it's true meaning in relation to achievement and success.

Even the NYT did not disagree:

https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/record-war.html

And many more knew it to be so.

www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/40-years-later-will-end-games-iraq-and-afghanistan-follow-vietnam-playbook

Shymm3x:
By mere reading this thread and judging by what everyone posited - you'd know those who have either been in the military, are military/war enthusiasts, have families in the military, read global military journals and briefings extensively, and/or watched different documentaries of different wars with perspectives from both sides. And only Rotimi47 and mach7 made sense in their posts. A lot of these other kids who can barely spell and constructing intelligible sentences is a myth to think war is just about propaganda and exhibition. Thank God those at pentagon aren't suicidal cos every time Russia dares them, they always fall back cos they know what is at stake. Posturing is all good and fun, but a shooting match is a different ball game entirely.

The world just need to keep praying against any miscalculations that might lead to an all out war between superpowers cos it will be devastating for both sides and that is when you will know that most of these flamboyant hardware are just toys. Those of us who like the US just don't want to see it in ruins but the country needs to fall back after decades of creating utter chaos and killing tens of millions of folks everywhere. And if the re-emergence of Russia and arrival of China would make that happen, so be it. Russia has always been the country where civilisations are buried - you can ask the ghost of Napoleon. Just leave the bear alone. Even at its weakest state during Yeltsin's era - it was a very dangerous country. Now imagine what it is now with the lightening speed in which Putin is modernising everything.

When it comes to pilots and armoured brigades who can get the best out of their hardware - the Russians are masters. The Cubans they trained in tank warfare would outwit the yanks in tank battle - go check what they did to the Israelis. Personally, I won't even go as far as comparing the untested F-22 raptors and its oxygen problems with SU-35/MiG-35...even the SU-30M should outflank it in a duel, that's if oxygen problem doesn't kill whoever is the F-22. As for F-35, that is just a colossal waste of billions, hence all the countries involved are pulling out one after the other. 5th gen fighter jets are a waste, regardless, hence every country (not just the US) has moved to 6th gen fighter jets - including: Sweden, France, Germany, South Korea, Japan, and the UK (that is the reason why the UK is phasing out the Tornados in 2018 or so).

Regarding bombers, they're only as good as the fighter jets protecting them - they can't win in air superiority. And I don't know how any of the US bombers would even get to the Russia airspace, to be honest. The US still can't find answers to s300 - and Russia is about to phase that out for the more mobile and effective vityaz. The s500 is also coming and there's Pantsir-S1 which most analysts believe is the best on the planet. I honestly don't know how any country can overcome a very complex multiply layers of air defence like that with a bomber.

The US definitely has its capabilities and advantages but in a proper shooting match - both countries would be utterly destroyed. But the bear can withstand utter destruction like they did against the Nazis...can the same be said about the US? Don't underestimate the bear - just leave it alone cos it will fight to the last man when push comes to shove.

Duru1:
It is an intellectual dishonest to quote from nytimes which was against the USA military involvement in Vietnam. Political liberals in USA were one reasons among reasons behind the USA military fiasco Vietnam.

Tkester:
Crap!

mazeltov:
Appleyard , the only valid point you made in your post is the motive behind United states invasion of Vietnam.

Nixon sought to deflate the antiwar movement by appealing to a “silent majority” of Americans who he believed supported the war effort. In an attempt to
limit the volume of American casualties, he announced a program of withdrawing
troops, increasing aerial and artillery bombardment and giving South Vietnamese control over ground operations. In addition
to this policy, which he called
“ Vietnamization,” Nixon continued public peace talks in Paris, adding higher-level
secret talks conducted by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger beginning in the spring of 1968. The North Vietnamese continued to insist on complete U.S. withdrawal as a condition of peace, however, and the next
few years would bring even more carnage, including the horrifying revelation that U.S. soldiers had massacred more than 400
unarmed civilians in the village of My Lai in March 1968.
Anti-war protests continued to build as the conflict wore on. In 1968 and 1969, there were hundreds of anti-war marches and
gatherings throughout the country. On November 15, 1969, the largest anti-war protest in American history took place in
Washington, D.C., as over 250,000 Americans gathered peacefully, calling for withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam. The anti-
war movement, which was particularly strong on college campuses, divided Americans bitterly. For some young people,
the war symbolized a form of unchecked authority they had come to resent. For other Americans, opposing the government was considered unpatriotic and treasonous.
As the first U.S. troops were withdrawn, those who remained became increasingly angry and frustrated, exacerbating problems with morale and leadership. Tens
of thousands of soldiers received
dishonorable discharges for desertion, and about 500,000 American men from 1965-73
became “draft dodgers,” with many fleeing to Canada to evade conscription. Nixon ended draft calls in 1972, and instituted an
all-volunteer army the following year. In 1970, a joint U.S-South Vietnamese operation invaded Cambodia, hoping to wipe out DRV supply bases there. The South
Vietnamese then led their own invasion of Laos, which was pushed back by North Vietnam. The invasion of these countries, in violation of international law, sparked a new wave of protests on college campuses across America, including two at Kent State in Ohio and Jackson State in Mississippi during which National Guardsmen and police killed a total of six student protesters.
By the end of June 1972, however, after another failed offensive into South Vietnam, Hanoi was finally willing to compromise. Kissinger and North Vietnamese representatives drafted a peace agreement by early fall, but leaders in Saigon rejected it,
and in December Nixon authorized a number of bombing raids against targets in Hanoi and Haiphong. Known as the Christmas Bombings, the raids drew international condemnation.
with this little analysis, I believe you must learnt why Us goverment withdrew its troops. America didn't withdraw its troops because they lost - No America didn't lose - but because the war has divided many people at home. The war was lost at home 'America' not on the battle field. The battle lacked major support
• What constitutes "winning"?
It’s not as easy to answer this question as one might think.
Lance Janda, a professor of history at Cameron University in Lawton, Okla., said that "our strategy in Vietnam did not revolve around taking and holding terrain. In fact,
we often captured and then abandoned key positions over and over again, and measured our progress in the war through a body count."
By that measure, Janda added, "it’s certainly true that we consistently inflicted far greater
casualties on the Viet Cong and North Vietnam than we suffered, and if that’s the only gauge one uses to measure ‘victory,’ then we really did win in Vietnam."
On the other hand, he said, "if you argue that the North Vietnamese learned how to fight us in the early major battles of the war
and then developed superior tactical and strategic plans for prolonging and ultimately
winning the war, then you can plausibly make the case that they were winning a lot of battles from the beginning, regardless of
the body count."

mazeltov:
Appleyard , the only valid point you made in your post is the motive behind United states invasion of Vietnam.

Nixon sought to deflate the antiwar movement by appealing to a “silent majority” of Americans who he believed supported the war effort. In an attempt to
limit the volume of American casualties, he announced a program of withdrawing
troops, increasing aerial and artillery bombardment and giving South Vietnamese control over ground operations. In addition
to this policy, which he called
“ Vietnamization,” Nixon continued public peace talks in Paris, adding higher-level
secret talks conducted by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger beginning in the spring of 1968. The North Vietnamese continued to insist on complete U.S. withdrawal as a condition of peace, however, and the next
few years would bring even more carnage, including the horrifying revelation that U.S. soldiers had massacred more than 400
unarmed civilians in the village of My Lai in March 1968.
Anti-war protests continued to build as the conflict wore on. In 1968 and 1969, there were hundreds of anti-war marches and
gatherings throughout the country. On November 15, 1969, the largest anti-war protest in American history took place in
Washington, D.C., as over 250,000 Americans gathered peacefully, calling for withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam. The anti-
war movement, which was particularly strong on college campuses, divided Americans bitterly. For some young people,
the war symbolized a form of unchecked authority they had come to resent. For other Americans, opposing the government was considered unpatriotic and treasonous.
As the first U.S. troops were withdrawn, those who remained became increasingly angry and frustrated, exacerbating problems with morale and leadership. Tens
of thousands of soldiers received
dishonorable discharges for desertion, and about 500,000 American men from 1965-73
became “draft dodgers,” with many fleeing to Canada to evade conscription. Nixon ended draft calls in 1972, and instituted an
all-volunteer army the following year. In 1970, a joint U.S-South Vietnamese operation invaded Cambodia, hoping to wipe out DRV supply bases there. The South
Vietnamese then led their own invasion of Laos, which was pushed back by North Vietnam. The invasion of these countries, in violation of international law, sparked a new wave of protests on college campuses across America, including two at Kent State in Ohio and Jackson State in Mississippi during which National Guardsmen and police killed a total of six student protesters.
By the end of June 1972, however, after another failed offensive into South Vietnam, Hanoi was finally willing to compromise. Kissinger and North Vietnamese representatives drafted a peace agreement by early fall, but leaders in Saigon rejected it,
and in December Nixon authorized a number of bombing raids against targets in Hanoi and Haiphong. Known as the Christmas Bombings, the raids drew international condemnation.
with this little analysis, I believe you must learnt why Us goverment withdrew its troops. America didn't withdraw its troops because they lost - No America didn't lose - but because the war has divided many people at home. The war was lost at home 'America' not on the battle field. The battle lacked major support
• What constitutes "winning"?
It’s not as easy to answer this question as one might think.
Lance Janda, a professor of history at Cameron University in Lawton, Okla., said that "our strategy in Vietnam did not revolve around taking and holding terrain. In fact,
we often captured and then abandoned key positions over and over again, and measured our progress in the war through a body count."
By that measure, Janda added, "it’s certainly true that we consistently inflicted far greater
casualties on the Viet Cong and North Vietnam than we suffered, and if that’s the only gauge one uses to measure ‘victory,’ then we really did win in Vietnam."
On the other hand, he said, "if you argue that the North Vietnamese learned how to fight us in the early major battles of the war
and then developed superior tactical and strategic plans for prolonging and ultimately
winning the war, then you can plausibly make the case that they were winning a lot of battles from the beginning, regardless of
the body count."

Duru1:
It is an intellectual dishonest to quote from nytimes which was against the USA military involvement in Vietnam. Political liberals in USA were one reasons among reasons behind the USA military fiasco in Vietnam.

Tkester:
Appleyard, that girl you responded to is a dimwit, she maliciously wants to misrepresent fact. She's a trained LAIR, next time leave her to her lies.

Your analysis on that topic carried the day. You're a champ!

Tkester:
Mehn I tell ya appleyard, I can never grow tired of reading your posts, It gives me mental ejaculation. Darn, you write with a kind of literary prose that sets my feet dancing Makossa.

Respect

mach7:
My brother, people like you always read Stratfor and swallow their BS hook, line and sinker. Pull up the specs of the specs of the Mi-28, the Ka-52 and the Ka-50 to mention a few and compare with other American models. That America uses its weaponry against weaker opponents and advertises their superiority, doesn't make it the best in the world. America has not fought a full fledged war with a world power since WW2 and this is same for Russia. That America owns a lot of Carriers doesn't equate to "best naval hardware". how well can such hardware perform against a full fledged military power like Russia? Check out the USS Donald Cook, the USS Cole and the USS Stark - epitomes of America's naval hardware. They were decapitated, sunk or destroyed by weaker nations in battle. Remember that last month, smaller Russian ships of 'unknown quality' fired Kalibr cruise missiles to destroy IS targets in Syria. So nothing is black and white. America is strong, so is Russia. Most importantly, we need a counter balance to America's dominance to keep everyone in check. Research more bro.

mazeltov:
Lolzz, Appleyard, despite the fact that you are wrong from head to toe, you reply sounds more like an excuse than reason to me and I could see how hard you have been trying to jump and recoat facts and records so as to unify them with the ignorance of the gullible ones here - who have little or no knowledge about what pellucidly transpired before, during and after Viet war. It's quite unfortunate that many minds have been scorched with this mutual fallacy that America lost the war but I hope this come-back would unyoke their ignorance and give them bright insight. Yes I perfectly understood your standing point which is - the fundamental objectives of America to occupy Viet was not achieved ; not ''defeated'' yes it wasn't. However I will try as much as possible to down beat the message that I'm trying to relay across so as to enlighten and give you pellucid insight.
Firstly I never argued about the intention of America and their course, aims and Objectives of United state in Viet, this is one thing which I can't debate, another thing which you can't debate is the withdrawal of American's troops despite the fact that they have inflicted severe casualties against the opponent. Let's be more objective here and forget about sentiment.I'm defining victory in terms of the number of casualties suffered in the war not in terms of objective and I will gladly tell you why the objective wasn't achieved. The Opponent lost about 195,000-430,000 civilians while the number of soldiers lost was more than 313,000 which is far greater than what United state suffered. Without presupposing, this is a flawless victory for United state and its ally and a heavy loss for the opponent, ''1'' with this figures, one could easily predict the trend of the war and how it could have ended, and one could boldly say that - had it been United state had not withdrawn their troops, it would have been a convincing victory for them.
''2'' America was wining the war until they left Veit, America was on the verge of victory until the protest started. These alone should tell you that America withdrew not becuase they were losing but because they realized that the war lacked merit of support.
Yes I quite agree with you that their objective wasn't achieved but you find it hard to do some fact-findings as regards to why and what led to the withdrawal. Had it been that there wasn't any protest at home in United states, with the 'then' number of casualties, the opponent would have surrendered sooner or later.
Now when the protest against the war began at home, In United States, the effects of the Vietnam War would linger long after the last troops returned home in 1973. The nation spent more than $120 billion on the war in Vietnam from 1965-73; this massive spending led to widespread inflation, exacerbated by a worldwide oil crisis
Now saying that United state was defeated because they couldn't occupy Viet and their aim wasn't achieved is completetly unresourceful, lame and lack merit. That's why up till today, the Us war Veterans in Pentagon always say ''the war was lost at home I rest my case

989900:
USA:
Over 14,000 aircrafts, and 20 aircraft carriers of which 10 are Nimitz class.


China and Russia put together:

Have 3-4 aircraft carriers, and less than 9,000 aircrafts.


Forget nukes: it's MAD.

Also about nukes, the US just needs to be close enough on any of their allies' territory for anti-ICBMs to be very effective, such as intercepting nukes at lauch stage.

scully95:
[s]The craziest talk I have ever come across on Nairaland forum. hahaha, you funny oh. With all those carriers usually meant for invaders invading smaller un-armed 3rd world countries in their diary. When you have Club missiles that could travel 1500Km to hit target. India has it and Russia.. Did you forget what happened to frigate in the Arab water when Russia fired 26 klub missiles from its Caspian Sea ? That 26 missiles was even a message because the frigate was named after the 26th president of U.S (Theodore Roosevelt).. The Klub missiles made 147 bends to hit targets in Syria. Traveled over Iraq,Iran to hit targets. That has never happened in the history of firing guided missiles and again, only two were used to destroy its target.. Compare to tomahawk guided missiles which has range of about 700-1400km and about 4 were used per target in the past. Russia has 1500-2500Km range using just two to hit target and destroyed it.

The following day that frigate (CVN Theodore Roosevelt) left the Arab waters. So forget carriers, they are useless. Take it or leave it, if U.S or Germany fires any Nuke as we speak, it will not blow in Russia. With its recent capabilities. I mean what they recently said they can do to answer the recent renewing of Nukes in Germany and the one that will be on patrol in the Baltic states.

Russia said, it will arm its Isklander (note, this is what destroyed Georgia front back in the day and war ended in 3 days). Isklander is NATO fearest Russian weapon because non of their radars could even smell it around.

Russia's reply to the re-newing of Nukes, is it will arm its Isklanders with Nukes to shoot it down.. This has not been tested before but when Russia says something like that.. They obviously have more sophisticated one in the cooler..

And here im suspecting their latest EW which is capable of blowing up missile fired at it. When it comes to military, forget Russia is far ahead of U.S and NATO combined. Now Russia in alliance with China.. Ha, I am not exaggerating. this is ten times more powerful than the whole of U.S military, NATO and each country in EU plus japan and Australia join with even Canada.


This is the reason.. Russia builds it military by looking at the situation on ground or in any war around the world. It build its arms to combat that type of scenario if encountered..

While america does the opposite.. America Builds Military hardware and then set up a war to test this military hardware and everyone (lari mo) buys into it. So the difference here is clear.. Russia builds military hardware for real war, proper war zone.

This is why Russian weapons are cheaper and more effective.. Cost effective in a real or proper war zone.


Last point you said, such as intercepting nukes at lauch stage.
What do you think is the work of pantsir s1 or further development 9M311 Tunguska ? pantsir s1 is guilding any launch stage missiles and all S300 and S-400 Triumf at launch stage.. And by the time russia Jams the whole of the airspace which it's capabale now of jamming about 600km.. Forget, this will leave enemy a very little success on its side..

The only option left would be to fight one on one.. How many of you remember this..
See what u will be facing bellow.[/s]
[img]http://2.bp..com/-8ZL-HhMBkJA/VkARUReTZCI/AAAAAAAAm-o/o-tTLWCeW_Q/s1600/rus.jpg[/img]

Get updated please.
[img]http://2.bp..com/-Ft_SevosW4Q/VkARUWFOlSI/AAAAAAAAm-s/Dkdo_QsQnSM/s1600/rus2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://3.bp..com/-qB86IAFFUfk/VkARUZQc-xI/AAAAAAAAm-w/5RgycLealqc/s1600/rus1.jpg[/img]

mazeltov:
Lwkmd, Appleyard, you keep recycling the same defective/substandard point and it has long lost its taste and sensitivity and has also plunged my psyche to sustain this back and forth due to your unceasing projection of Vietnam war aberrance and misconception.
Also, your premeditated banality encrusted in form of humoral reposite to engage my antecedent comments holds no modicum of analytical cum appealing positivism to even apostrophize some preponderant fact I have bewrayed which was, Who defeated America? on the same theme was failure to address what led to gradual withdrwal of American's troops.
Also your protracted frivolities to absorb the above ''apothegm'' in question has diaphanously publicized the depth of your knowledge as regards to all-inclusive scenarios in Viet war but I would like to depurate the little profundity of yours for the last time.
Firstly Viet war was bifacial which means, the winner did't achieve its intrisic objective and the loser didn't give up the rope so it's illogical, unreasoned and unprofessional to converge the lines of your prejudiced interests on the American's elementary objective(s) without complementing it with some unimpeachable axioms like
1. What led to gradual exodus of troops in Viet?
2. You failed to assess the 'then' state of war and who was at home, who was invading.
3. Was America on the verge of victory before their ballon was punctured by citizens' protest at home.
Above all, who defeated America?
I thought all these questions would spring to your mind and the potency of your insight/knowledge would be channeled to these cynosures as aforementioned above, but you keep battologizing the same subterguge to beguile the minds fleeceable ones by saying the outcome of a war is not determined by who inflicts most casualties; for God's sake, this is paralytic, unprofessional and out of point.
I never argued about the objective of United state to invade and uphold Viet but this mission wasn't blown away because they lost in the frontline or by the dexterity of the enemies' art of war - but because there was another war at home which had already divided americans. Yes I agree, America couldn't achieve their objective but the question I keep asking is who defeated America?
I pray this closest example will give you a clue of my point
In a fight between Appleyard and Mazeltov, Appleyard's primary objective is to cut off Mazeltov's head and after Appleyard had beaten Mazeltov mercilessly and helplessly, Appleyard was unable to cut off Mazeltov's head due to some prevailing circumstances.
Note: Appleyard's decision or inability to cut off Mazeltov's head doesn't mean that Appleyard lost the fight to Mazeltov and it doesn't mean that Mazeltov defeated Appleyard in the fight. - with this, the burning question is, who won the fight between the two? chill, your answer is as good as mine.

mazeltov:
Scully9, The Klub family is just a modular family of different types of cruise missiles tasked for different roles although depending on their motors and
guidance systems.
Some types of these missiles are
used for attacking surfacewarships and others for attacking submarines. Those that are used to attack surface warships typically skim close to the sea, but they have a supersonic terminal phase and those used to attack
submarines are short range and sometimes supersonic, and launch a light anti-submarine torpedo into the sea or even near the point where the submarine has been spotted.
The land attack version of the Klub used in this attack uses a combination of inertial
and satellite guidance and in order to achieve a longer range (up to 2,500 km is claimed) so there is nothing special about a launched missiles having 147 bends while flying or even hit their target, also it uses a turbojet as opposed to a rocket engine to fly subsonically at Mach 0.8. Wow!! That's cool!!
Which is exactly analogous to the subsonic long range cruise missiles the US has regularly
used in conflicts starting with the 1990 Gulf war so Russia is not the first or only country to use that type of missiles, America has also used it before since 1991 but I don't know whether they have decommissioned it or still in service.
Even Russians have not identified the warships that America used to launch the missiles but key point about the Klub missile family is
that they are modular and this means that different versions of the missile can be launched from the same launcher.
Yed Russia’s Caspian Sea Flotilla is known to possess two Gepard class frigates and six Buyan class missile corvettes and all of which
would be capable of launching these missiles but in order to strike Islamic State targets in
Syria, the Russians will need to obtain permission from Iran and Iraq through whose their airspace the missiles would have had to fly. and if Iran and Iraq didn't give go ahead order, the missiles would be knocked down during flight operation.
The missile strike therefore confirms two things (1) that the Russians again have demonstrated a capability that previously only the US had demonstrated; and (2) that
the coalition they have created with Syria, Iran and Iraq is a fully operating reality, that is able to confer and agree on missile
strikes. Missile strikes have certain advantages over air attacks.They limit the risk of casualties, making it easier to attack fixed targets that are more likely to have strong anti-aircraft defences.
The Islamic State is known to possess man portable short range surface to air missiles including Russian made Strela and Igla
missiles. They are also known to have anti- aircraft cannon.
Whilst their air defence systems are unlikely to be very strong or sophisticated, and the Russians have well developed methods to
protect their aircraft from such systems, there is no reason why the Russians should risk their aircraft and pilots when an entirely safe alternative exists.
In addition, supplementing the aircraft strike force with long range missiles greatly increases tactical flexibility, enabling a
greater number of targets to be attacked. For obvious reasons, cruise missiles are suitable for attacking fixed targets, such as
weapons depots or headquarters. Using them to do so frees the aircraft to attack mobile targets, such as artillery or tanks.
Subsonic cruise missiles are exceptionally difficult to observe and track - and shoot down - so the element of surprise is increased. The Islamic State now knows it can be attacked anywhere and at any time -day or night - without warning. Lastly, it is significant that the Russians have chosen to launch their missiles from the Caspian Sea rather than the Mediterranean
(land based versions of long range cruise missiles are prohibited by the 1987
Intermediate Nuclear Forces (“INF”) Treaty).
The choice of the Caspian Sea is dictated by the political situation. The US has very powerful fleet and intelligence assets in the
Mediterranean - as do US allies such as Israel. Launching their missiles from the Caspian Sea enables the Russians to do so
without outside observation or interference. Also you made mention Tomahawk missiles well let me leave you to that. Also in mention is Russian EW weapons- the only weapons that can be jammed are weapons without countermeasure technology. Any weapons built with countermeasure technology can't be jammed. For example, Russian S-400 can't be jammed because it comes with countermeasure technology. After reading your post, I have come to conclude that you are one of those guys these countries use to brainwash through media propaganda.

scully95:
[s]What are you even saying self ?
It seems you don't even know what you are saying. Countermeasures lol.. When Russia jams, forget counter measues. I am telling you fact this is not come chop propaganda like you are so in-love with. In the jamming warfare, forget Russia is 110 % ahead and U.S is just a learner and it was even admited that the U.S that sent soldiers to Ukraine to train the Ukraiians was actually learning Russia's jamming capabilities..

They have it in arsenal. Not one not two ok. And I'm 110% sure, they would be so stupid to use the main one in a conflict like or proxy war like in Ukraine or even Syria. The state of the heart weapons would surely be preserve for National use and no one actually knows what Russia got. The same thing with U.S.
Go back to history, out of about 35 wars Russia has fought, it lost just 3. We are talking about over the course 300 years. I can name 5 stupid wars U.S has lost.

Another thing you need to understand, Russia will never start a war first.. But they always finish wars. Another last point.. The United West have lost 3 wars with Russia. NATO combined with Isreal, US armies, Saudi Arabia, Japan and the remaining of its permanent Puppets cannot win a war with Russia. This is a fact ! They fight till the end.

You actually think Russia would use its best missiles to its Enemy right ?? You and I know that any war with Russia, you can't win. This is not moi moi.

Plus if you dont't even know. The fastest missile on Planet Earth is developed by the Russians. The Hypersonic Missile is made by Russia with Indai.. BrahMos 2.. This is what we know.. What about what we don't know.. China too has the next fastest Hypersonic Missiles. with speed of Mach 7. 7 times the speed of sound.

Even when it comes to nukes, forget it. Go and check NATO reporting name SATAN.. The upgraded Topo M missiles.. Meanwhile the missile NATO fears the most or hates is Iskander (NATO reporting name SS-26 Stone) Short-Range Ballistic Missile that can travel 400km.

The Iskander (NATO designation SS-26 Stone)Missiles and it simply because all its radar cant record the projectile... Meaning it's invisible....

This Iskander is specifically designed to destroy any NATO front. You are seating there and writing article like NYTimes. You better wake up to reality oh..

Oh you want to even talk about the best helicopters in the world ? Ka 2 Alligator ? Please stop talking about Military gears. U.S should stop using Russian rocket engines if it even want to compete technologically with Russia.. It's not by having 500 billions defense budget oh.

You and I know fighting is not by being big. A small boy or shanko will beat the hell out of one big for nothing.. That shanko is Russia for you.


I have explained above and I won't repeat.. In the history of firing land missiles, Non has traveled 1500km through two countries to hit target. It has never happened before.. Never ever.. So stop typing as if it;s not a big deal. It's a big deal and muscle flexing if you ask me and a warning to the likes of Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Qatar and Turkey..



My main point is here and you can't dispute it.. Russia builds weapons for proper war front, real war. While the U.S does the opposite. Meaning building weapons to sell.. That is build it and set up a war to test it.. SCAM.. And the likes of Saudi arabia will larimo till tomorrow.. And its puppets.. That's what puppets do best.. Follow their puppet master.[/s]

mazeltov:
Crap!!
[s]I hate to tell you this but your comment lacks objectivity, technicality, insight and depth and I lack the proper adjective to qualify your ignorance. Lolzz, ''please so sorry to say''. Arguing with you will be boring. No wonder I have been seeing threads like Russia Weapon Jams All Nato Nations on Nairaland. Good night sir!![/s]

scully95:
Lol.. The truth is bitter.. hahahaha I talk facts but you brag garbage. It's hard accepting reality.. Well, let me also add this..

The world is now in a transition to a multi-polar world. (It's sad U.s already exhausted its cards) African development Bank, BRICS, AIIB and SCO are the next Economic frontiers.

Take it or leave it, BRICS is already a reality. ADF and AIIB aswell.. Just wake up from your slumber and stop typing like baba luku plumber. Check all the facts above again and again.

Truth hurts...
It's sad to be blindly a pro AngloZionist Empire which you are .. The empire is dieing a slow but painful death already and it started since it lost Chechnya proxy war with Russia.. The AngloZionist Empire started falling since then.. So it's not today ok..